To answer the question posed by the OP, Lewis, Alonso, and Vettel are the best drivers on the grid. They are so closely matched that I can't tell who will come up tops if they are ever paired together, whether in 2007 or 2012. How anyone can argue that Alonso has developed as a driver, but has forgotten Lewis sublime performance in 2012 is beyond me.

Granted that Lewis had a couple of brain fades last year, but so did Alonso, and as some have intimated, Vettel. It is what it is. The best athletes are too full of themselves, narcissistic if you will, but this is one of the qualities that drive them.

We should be happy that we have such closely matched drivers on the grid, we may never see it again when this era ends.

What makes you say that, if you look at his results. He was strongest in the first 6 races and in qualifying. He out qualified Lewis 4-1 in the first 5 races, the 1 being when Alonsos car was damaged overnight in the pit lane.

The middle of the season was by far his worst period. He got it back together nearer the end, but I think Mclaren were up to something especially in the last 2 races because Lewis was too far ahead.

pokerman wrote:

I don't see that it took Alonso any time really to adapt to the Bridgestones

There's no evidence to support the fact that either Alonso or Hamilton are as limited as Webber in being able to adapt to what is required to get the maximum out of the Red Bull

I'll answer you both together because I'm essentially going to be saying the same thing.

I'm basing what I say on the analysis comments from expert commentators at the time, which I felt made a lot of sense. Alonso was used to and exceptionally good, probably the best, at extracting performance from the Michelin tyres, which (and I'm paraphrasing here) made for a very grippy front end of the car and required a particular type of turn in to 'bite'. The Renault he was driving in 05 and 06 was built around this concept. The Bridgestones were a totally different type of tyre requiring a totally different style.

Now yes statistically Alonso beat Hamilton, but watching him drive the car he didn't look comfortable. Moreover, I agreed with commentators who said that the gap between them was smaller than it should have been. This is a difficult part of the discussion to include because I suspect that now I'm going to be jumped on by Hamilton fans AND Alonso fans. Hamilton was a rookie, and a very impressive one at that, but that he was giving Alonso such a run for his money so early IMO fitted with the fact that Alonso was not extracting the maximum from the car. By the time Alonso had adapted the situation in the team was degenerating so it's very difficult to judge relative performance.

Regarding pokerman's comments about Alonso and Hamilton not being as limited as Webber, NO-ONE has said that they are so I'm not sure what point you're making. In fact it has been stated very clearly that they would adapt better than him.

Sums it up quite well. Alonso's driving clearly improved around mid-season/two thirds in but his relationship with the team was all but gone.

I remember watching the Canadian GP wondering how on earth how was doing it so wrong. He looked all at sea compared to Hamilton who simply just dominated (and as we know now he's a Montreal specialist).

From what I have seen Hamilton is at his very best when he has nothing to lose. 2007, 2009 and probably hit a new peak in late 2012 - once his McLaren career and WDC chances were over. Alonso had a lot to prove and after being so used to the Renault/Michelin characteristics, found it harder to get to grips with the McLaren. Lewis had to learn, Alonso had to un-learn and learn again. We all know if Alonso had just kept his head he would have triumphed, but the frustration got to him.

If Vettel is treated as No.1? then probably only Hamilton, it's tough to beat a No.1 with the team behind him when you're designated No.2 but Hamilton's outright speed would turn the tables on the unholy Marko/Vettel alliance.

If the drivers were given equal status? then half the grid would probably have Vettel's number.

To answer the question posed by the OP, Lewis, Alonso, and Vettel are the best drivers on the grid. They are so closely matched that I can't tell who will come up tops if they are ever paired together, whether in 2007 or 2012. How anyone can argue that Alonso has developed as a driver, but has forgotten Lewis sublime performance in 2012 is beyond me.

Granted that Lewis had a couple of brain fades last year, but so did Alonso, and as some have intimated, Vettel. It is what it is. The best athletes are too full of themselves, narcissistic if you will, but this is one of the qualities that drive them.

We should be happy that we have such closely matched drivers on the grid, we may never see it again when this era ends.

Simon Rennie is leaving Lotus to become Mark's race engineer. I can't help but hope this means I'll finally get my wish, that Kimi will replace Mark next year. You guys might get to find out if Kimi can beat Seb, as teammates . Ciaron Pilbeam is headed to Lotus to be chief of engineering. Swapsies. I assume Mark Slade will continue on for Kimi.

Well it would be good to see Vettel get paired up against a quality driver like Kimi to get a further indication of how good Vettel really is, it sort of would put a damper on the young driver program though

What makes you say that, if you look at his results. He was strongest in the first 6 races and in qualifying. He out qualified Lewis 4-1 in the first 5 races, the 1 being when Alonsos car was damaged overnight in the pit lane.

The middle of the season was by far his worst period. He got it back together nearer the end, but I think Mclaren were up to something especially in the last 2 races because Lewis was too far ahead.

pokerman wrote:

I don't see that it took Alonso any time really to adapt to the Bridgestones

There's no evidence to support the fact that either Alonso or Hamilton are as limited as Webber in being able to adapt to what is required to get the maximum out of the Red Bull

I'll answer you both together because I'm essentially going to be saying the same thing.

I'm basing what I say on the analysis comments from expert commentators at the time, which I felt made a lot of sense. Alonso was used to and exceptionally good, probably the best, at extracting performance from the Michelin tyres, which (and I'm paraphrasing here) made for a very grippy front end of the car and required a particular type of turn in to 'bite'. The Renault he was driving in 05 and 06 was built around this concept. The Bridgestones were a totally different type of tyre requiring a totally different style.

Now yes statistically Alonso beat Hamilton, but watching him drive the car he didn't look comfortable. Moreover, I agreed with commentators who said that the gap between them was smaller than it should have been. This is a difficult part of the discussion to include because I suspect that now I'm going to be jumped on by Hamilton fans AND Alonso fans. Hamilton was a rookie, and a very impressive one at that, but that he was giving Alonso such a run for his money so early IMO fitted with the fact that Alonso was not extracting the maximum from the car. By the time Alonso had adapted the situation in the team was degenerating so it's very difficult to judge relative performance.

Regarding pokerman's comments about Alonso and Hamilton not being as limited as Webber, NO-ONE has said that they are so I'm not sure what point you're making. In fact it has been stated very clearly that they would adapt better than him.

It wasn't Alonso's natural driving style to drive the Renault he way he did, it just was the fastest way to get it around the track, the first 2 races of the 2007 season Alonso beat Hamilton fair and square, he didnt seem to struggle any to me, if he did then it doesn't make any sense why he would struggle for the rest of the season to maintain any dominance over Hamilton.

For the Webber comment, the inference really was that neither Alonso or Hamilton would be able to match Vettel because of the unusual driving style required to get the most out of the Red Bull which has been seemingly perfected by Vettel, i just don't see how anyone can be sure of that because of the adapability both drivers have shown thus far in their careers.

To answer the question posed by the OP, Lewis, Alonso, and Vettel are the best drivers on the grid. They are so closely matched that I can't tell who will come up tops if they are ever paired together, whether in 2007 or 2012. How anyone can argue that Alonso has developed as a driver, but has forgotten Lewis sublime performance in 2012 is beyond me.

Granted that Lewis had a couple of brain fades last year, but so did Alonso, and as some have intimated, Vettel. It is what it is. The best athletes are too full of themselves, narcissistic if you will, but this is one of the qualities that drive them.

We should be happy that we have such closely matched drivers on the grid, we may never see it again when this era ends.

Who could beat Vettel? Any very talented driver, then Vettel would beat him, then vice-versa, then vice-versa, etc...

Remember when Button went to McLaren; Hamilton was going to humiliate him, yet he didn't. At times Button was better, at times Hamilton was, etc. Same for the Senna/Prost years at McLaren, both were able to beat each other at times.

_________________Sebastian Vettel - Most successful driver on the 2013 grid!

Blinky replied to my post in the equivalent Hamilton thread which is now locked. As this is a general point I thought it would be alright to answer in here.

Juggles wrote:

Purely in terms of performance (i.e. within the control of the driver, difficult as that may be to pin down), there is no driver who would. That word implies too high a level of certainty. On 2012 form, there is also no driver who could (that includes Alonso in 2012 form).

Blinky McSquinty wrote:

But Formula One is not determined by hypothetical results, the teams and drivers have to deal with the real world, rain, luck, all manner of uncertainties. You don't put a theoretical team on the grid, you put a real car and driver on the grid, and let them race to determine the outcome. Just because a driver is quick in qualifying that does not automatically make him the best driver, it only makes him the quickest qualifier.

When Hamilton won the WDC in 2008 he had every right to stand tall and state "I'm the best driver in the world". But you can own that title for only one year, then it passes to the next person who wins the WDC.

That's why they race.

You are making a couple of different points and muddling them slightly.

1) "Just because a driver is quick in qualifying that does not automatically make him the best driver." I completely agree, I'm not sure how you got that from my post. When I say "performance" I don't mean pure speed, I mean the whole basket of attributes which need to come together to make a top F1 driver. As I implied, I believe Hamilton in 2012 displayed such a potent combination of brutal speed and metronomic consistency in both his driving and his car setup (his only real on track mistake in the entire season was outbraking himself at the restart in Abu Dhabi, which could have cost him dear but didn't; such was his dominance that weekend I think it's unlikely Raikkonen could have held him off for the rest of the race anyway) that no driver could have beaten him in performance terms. Which brings me on to point 2:

2) Indeed, F1 takes place in the real world and is subject to all manner of uncertainties. So, knowing that, how on earth can you extrapolate something so complicated as who the best driver is from simply looking at the points tally at the end of the year? Are you really saying the best driver in any given season is the one who won the WDC. Sorry, but that's laughably shallow. For example, in 2012 Vettel won the world championship because the combination of driver, team and external factors meant that car number 1 delivered the most world championship points at the end of the season. As the driver, he obviously gets some of the credit for that; he beat his teammate comprehensively and drove well in a number of races, excellently in a few. But don't think that just because it's called the drivers championship you can isolate their performances from all other factors in such an unsubtle way.

As a general rule, Vettel fans value statistics above all else while Hamilton fans look for the nuance that defines how those statistics were accumulated. Hardly surprising, is it? In the case of 2012 you can brush off every bolt of lightning that crippled Hamilton's title charge if it makes you feel better, yet despite Hamilton finishing ninety points behind Vettel and only two points ahead of Button, I haven't seen too many people putting Vettel's 2012 performance ahead of Hamilton's. I haven't seen anyone putting Vettel's 2012 performance ahead of Alonso's. Perhaps there's more to F1 than just the numbers?

Edit - I forgot to answer the last part of your post. 2008 was actually Hamilton's second most error strewn year. He was magical in some races, downright shoddy in others. It was probably his most mercurial season. In 2008 I would have said Kubica was the driver of the year. When he lost his title to Button in 2009 he didn't become a worse driver; he went up in most people's estimations for driving well in a car which was pants for the first half of the season. It is possible for a driver to win the championship one year and come fifth the next year while driving better. That is just the massive role the cars have to play in this sport. The most a driver can say after winning the title is "my team and I were the best package of the year," and even that doesn't take into account the effect things like arbitrary punctures and other drivers can have on a title challenge.

_________________The fight is won or lost far away from witnesses - behind the lines, in the gym, and out there on the road, long before I dance under those lights